EPA scientists drop bombshell in political-interference survey

EPA scientists drop bombshell in political-interference survey

Science around environmental matters has long been dismissed in the rough and tumble of U.S. politics, but many scientists contend things got markedly worse through two terms under President Bush, as incidents have shown how political appointees were involved in shaping government reports on everything from climate change to condoms.

“The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations,” Grifo said.

The survey comes as EPA is under fire from Congress on a number of fronts, including its delay in determining whether carbon dioxide should be regulated to combat global warming.

EPA scientists described an agency where senior managers and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA scientists, the report said.

Well, Rob, you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to go after the Union of Concerned Scientists as a left-wing lobby group, you can’t claim that the list of references that Marc Morano slapped together has any more credibility. Fern Mackenzie

No thats an asumption you cant make, x in 10 might think its not different, or the same, x in 10 might think its more than before. Just because 4 in 10 think its more does not mean 6 in 10 think its less.

I would have expected you to arrive at another conclusion after thinking more on the topic but first things first.

It does still remain true that senior scientists, 42.9% of them, find more interference now than in the previous admin while 4.1% find less. That is a clear distinction from how they view the relative amount. But lets even say who cares about those numbers. Lets get to the important part.

Why are you not bothered by political interference in science, because you seem to be along the track that this doesnt matter!?! Over 50% of scientists are saying they have/are/currently/in the past, experiencing some form of political interference in their scientific research. A central government regardless of the admin should not be interfering in scientific work dont you think? Or is that ok in your mind depending on the political ideology applying pressure?

Carl, you are cherry picking by using the data for senior scientists which offers a result conducive to the UCS’s predetermined agenda.

It remains that among all EPA scientists responding to the survey, nearly 2/3rds do not report an increase in political interference.

The Union of Concerned Scientists commissioned the poll and then torques the data to exaggerate the results they want.

Political interference among publicaly paid scientists is a more complex issue and is not something the UCS has attempted to address in any intelligent manner.

I disagree with you in the role of a central government and science. Since our government is paying 100% of the bills and salaries of the scientists, naturally the government will determine what science is funded. Policy, of course, remains under the authority of our elected representatives. Like I said, the issue is a complex one, and would require much more discussion to be adequately addressed.

Paul S/G said: “Since our government is paying 100% of the bills and salaries of the scientists, naturally the government will determine what science is funded”. If you knew anything about how science operates (at least in Canada) you would know that it is in fact scientists who decide what projects are funded, not Government.

Government allocates funding to the Research Councils who then have practicing scientists who decide which project gets funding and which does not.

Even in the research efforts of Government departments it is up to scientists to decide where the money goes.

What is being discussed in this thread is the censorship and blatant distortion of results by politicians for partisan ends. One has only to look at the regulatory agencies in the US to see where this is most blatant.

I’ve never seen politicians altering results if it is to the benefit of the general population, only to the benefit of the politicians’ sugar daddies i.e. big business.

So Paul, get off your high horse and find out what is actually happening. Do you get a pay cheque from a large chemical company? These are the only people you seem to support, they and their political accomplices.

“If you knew anything about how science operates (at least in Canada) you would know that it is in fact scientists who decide what projects are funded, not Government.”

Then you say this:

“Government allocates funding to the Research Councils… “

Which confirms my point that government (ultimately us) funds public scientists 100% and through this funding we ultimately control what research is funded. This is as it should be.

This thread is not however, about blatant distortion and censorship by politicians. It is about an activist, agenda-driven and politically-motivated organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists, commissioning a poll to advance their own agenda and then torquing the results to suit their predetermined agenda.

Remember, according to the results of the UCS poll, nearly 2/3rds of respondents (over 65%) do not report an increase in political interference in their work.

I assure you I do not work for a chemical company (though I am a fan of chemicals) but fail to see how that matter has any relevance to the issue at hand.

Which is fine because the survey does cover censorship by politicians, just under 50% (all respondants) think changing the meaning (ie blatant distortion) of scientific findings is occuring.

I really dont get how you think this is acceptable. Thats non scientists ie political appointees changing the results of experiments, assessments, etc to meet a certain objective. This isnt about guiding research direction, or controlling the agency and its efforts, this is actually changing the meaning of scientific findings. Its definitely not science anymore once that starts happening but clearly you think its acceptable.

The fact it is occuring should be disturbing on its own. Making excuses for it is even worse.

Paul S/G, you show your extreme ignorance in just about everything you post on this blog.

Why do you continue to show that you are ignorant? Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling that you can try and distort the thinking of intelligent people? I can assure you that your rubbish will only be read and accepted by the likes of Rob, ZOG, Troll and the few other mindless fools who infect this site with their sickening ideology and anti-science vitriol.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.